❓ Mr. Templeman asks about the Leader of the Opposition's remarks on accountability for IT outsourcing failures. Mr. Ripper uses the opportunity to attack the Leader of the Opposition's past performance and perceived lack of accountability.
AnsweredQoN 644Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OUTSOURCING CONTRACTS
Is the Deputy Premier aware of remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition on ABC Radio late yesterday to the effect that former government ministers were not responsible for the failure of information technology outsourcing contracts because accountability lay with the heads of government departments? Mr RIPPER
Is the Deputy Premier aware of remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition on ABC Radio late yesterday to the effect that former government ministers were not responsible for the failure of information technology outsourcing contracts because accountability lay with the heads of government departments? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am aware of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Is the member for Mandurah paraphrasing or providing a direct quote? The SPEAKER: I do not think this is a point of order. The Deputy Premier will enlighten the Leader of the Opposition about its accuracy. Debate Resumed Mr RIPPER: I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television and he placed the blame of the failure of outsourcing contracts on heads of government departments. It is an interesting view of accountability. It is not shared by other members of the Opposition. A learned member of the Opposition takes a different view. In 1998 he said - One of the important things about ministerial responsibility is that Ministers are responsible for what their departments do, whether the Ministers know about it or not. The department is the Minister, and the concept that the Minister, in whose name everything is done and who is responsible for everything, should not know what is happening in the department is quite contrary to the constitutional idea of accountability. Those were the views of Hon Peter Foss in 1998. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the backing of his colleagues. His pattern of behaviour since he has gone into the depths of opposition is quite revealing. He has had difficulty in accepting responsibility for anything in the past. Last night he rejected private sector criticism of the former Government’s handling of the Kingstream project. He said it was not his fault, as he was the world’s greatest resource minister. What about the collapse of the west Kimberley gas project and legal action against the State by Epic Energy on alleged promises made during the gas pipeline sale process? What does he say about that? He says, “It’s not my fault; I was the world’s greatest energy minister.” What about unfunded commitments to provide laptop computers to teachers and reduce class sizes? The Under Treasurer dealt with those unfunded commitments in his famous memo to the then Treasurer and the then Premier. It has been quoted in this House before. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? Words to the effect that it is not his fault as he was the world’s greatest education minister. What about the four budget deficits in a row and the legacy of unfunded commitments? He said it was not his fault because he was only one member of the cabinet budget standing committee. What about the downturn in the State’s economy including three years in a row when business investment fell? He said it was not his fault, as he was only the resources minister. What about the disgraceful vilification of indigenous rights over native title issues? He said it was not his fault as it was the fault of Richard Court. There must be an end to this. If the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues cannot accept responsibility for the mistakes of the past, how can they have any credibility now?
Mr RIPPER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am aware of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Is the member for Mandurah paraphrasing or providing a direct quote? The SPEAKER: I do not think this is a point of order. The Deputy Premier will enlighten the Leader of the Opposition about its accuracy. Debate Resumed Mr RIPPER: I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television and he placed the blame of the failure of outsourcing contracts on heads of government departments. It is an interesting view of accountability. It is not shared by other members of the Opposition. A learned member of the Opposition takes a different view. In 1998 he said - One of the important things about ministerial responsibility is that Ministers are responsible for what their departments do, whether the Ministers know about it or not. The department is the Minister, and the concept that the Minister, in whose name everything is done and who is responsible for everything, should not know what is happening in the department is quite contrary to the constitutional idea of accountability. Those were the views of Hon Peter Foss in 1998. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the backing of his colleagues. His pattern of behaviour since he has gone into the depths of opposition is quite revealing. He has had difficulty in accepting responsibility for anything in the past. Last night he rejected private sector criticism of the former Government’s handling of the Kingstream project. He said it was not his fault, as he was the world’s greatest resource minister. What about the collapse of the west Kimberley gas project and legal action against the State by Epic Energy on alleged promises made during the gas pipeline sale process? What does he say about that? He says, “It’s not my fault; I was the world’s greatest energy minister.” What about unfunded commitments to provide laptop computers to teachers and reduce class sizes? The Under Treasurer dealt with those unfunded commitments in his famous memo to the then Treasurer and the then Premier. It has been quoted in this House before. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? Words to the effect that it is not his fault as he was the world’s greatest education minister. What about the four budget deficits in a row and the legacy of unfunded commitments? He said it was not his fault because he was only one member of the cabinet budget standing committee. What about the downturn in the State’s economy including three years in a row when business investment fell? He said it was not his fault, as he was only the resources minister. What about the disgraceful vilification of indigenous rights over native title issues? He said it was not his fault as it was the fault of Richard Court. There must be an end to this. If the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues cannot accept responsibility for the mistakes of the past, how can they have any credibility now?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am aware of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Is the member for Mandurah paraphrasing or providing a direct quote? The SPEAKER: I do not think this is a point of order. The Deputy Premier will enlighten the Leader of the Opposition about its accuracy. Debate Resumed Mr RIPPER: I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television and he placed the blame of the failure of outsourcing contracts on heads of government departments. It is an interesting view of accountability. It is not shared by other members of the Opposition. A learned member of the Opposition takes a different view. In 1998 he said - One of the important things about ministerial responsibility is that Ministers are responsible for what their departments do, whether the Ministers know about it or not. The department is the Minister, and the concept that the Minister, in whose name everything is done and who is responsible for everything, should not know what is happening in the department is quite contrary to the constitutional idea of accountability. Those were the views of Hon Peter Foss in 1998. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the backing of his colleagues. His pattern of behaviour since he has gone into the depths of opposition is quite revealing. He has had difficulty in accepting responsibility for anything in the past. Last night he rejected private sector criticism of the former Government’s handling of the Kingstream project. He said it was not his fault, as he was the world’s greatest resource minister. What about the collapse of the west Kimberley gas project and legal action against the State by Epic Energy on alleged promises made during the gas pipeline sale process? What does he say about that? He says, “It’s not my fault; I was the world’s greatest energy minister.” What about unfunded commitments to provide laptop computers to teachers and reduce class sizes? The Under Treasurer dealt with those unfunded commitments in his famous memo to the then Treasurer and the then Premier. It has been quoted in this House before. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? Words to the effect that it is not his fault as he was the world’s greatest education minister. What about the four budget deficits in a row and the legacy of unfunded commitments? He said it was not his fault because he was only one member of the cabinet budget standing committee. What about the downturn in the State’s economy including three years in a row when business investment fell? He said it was not his fault, as he was only the resources minister. What about the disgraceful vilification of indigenous rights over native title issues? He said it was not his fault as it was the fault of Richard Court. There must be an end to this. If the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues cannot accept responsibility for the mistakes of the past, how can they have any credibility now?
The SPEAKER: I do not think this is a point of order. The Deputy Premier will enlighten the Leader of the Opposition about its accuracy. Debate Resumed Mr RIPPER: I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television and he placed the blame of the failure of outsourcing contracts on heads of government departments. It is an interesting view of accountability. It is not shared by other members of the Opposition. A learned member of the Opposition takes a different view. In 1998 he said - One of the important things about ministerial responsibility is that Ministers are responsible for what their departments do, whether the Ministers know about it or not. The department is the Minister, and the concept that the Minister, in whose name everything is done and who is responsible for everything, should not know what is happening in the department is quite contrary to the constitutional idea of accountability. Those were the views of Hon Peter Foss in 1998. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the backing of his colleagues. His pattern of behaviour since he has gone into the depths of opposition is quite revealing. He has had difficulty in accepting responsibility for anything in the past. Last night he rejected private sector criticism of the former Government’s handling of the Kingstream project. He said it was not his fault, as he was the world’s greatest resource minister. What about the collapse of the west Kimberley gas project and legal action against the State by Epic Energy on alleged promises made during the gas pipeline sale process? What does he say about that? He says, “It’s not my fault; I was the world’s greatest energy minister.” What about unfunded commitments to provide laptop computers to teachers and reduce class sizes? The Under Treasurer dealt with those unfunded commitments in his famous memo to the then Treasurer and the then Premier. It has been quoted in this House before. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? Words to the effect that it is not his fault as he was the world’s greatest education minister. What about the four budget deficits in a row and the legacy of unfunded commitments? He said it was not his fault because he was only one member of the cabinet budget standing committee. What about the downturn in the State’s economy including three years in a row when business investment fell? He said it was not his fault, as he was only the resources minister. What about the disgraceful vilification of indigenous rights over native title issues? He said it was not his fault as it was the fault of Richard Court. There must be an end to this. If the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues cannot accept responsibility for the mistakes of the past, how can they have any credibility now?
The department is the Minister, and the concept that the Minister, in whose name everything is done and who is responsible for everything, should not know what is happening in the department is quite contrary to the constitutional idea of accountability.
Mr RIPPER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am aware of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Is the member for Mandurah paraphrasing or providing a direct quote? The SPEAKER: I do not think this is a point of order. The Deputy Premier will enlighten the Leader of the Opposition about its accuracy. Debate Resumed Mr RIPPER: I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television and he placed the blame of the failure of outsourcing contracts on heads of government departments. It is an interesting view of accountability. It is not shared by other members of the Opposition. A learned member of the Opposition takes a different view. In 1998 he said - One of the important things about ministerial responsibility is that Ministers are responsible for what their departments do, whether the Ministers know about it or not. The department is the Minister, and the concept that the Minister, in whose name everything is done and who is responsible for everything, should not know what is happening in the department is quite contrary to the constitutional idea of accountability. Those were the views of Hon Peter Foss in 1998. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the backing of his colleagues. His pattern of behaviour since he has gone into the depths of opposition is quite revealing. He has had difficulty in accepting responsibility for anything in the past. Last night he rejected private sector criticism of the former Government’s handling of the Kingstream project. He said it was not his fault, as he was the world’s greatest resource minister. What about the collapse of the west Kimberley gas project and legal action against the State by Epic Energy on alleged promises made during the gas pipeline sale process? What does he say about that? He says, “It’s not my fault; I was the world’s greatest energy minister.” What about unfunded commitments to provide laptop computers to teachers and reduce class sizes? The Under Treasurer dealt with those unfunded commitments in his famous memo to the then Treasurer and the then Premier. It has been quoted in this House before. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? Words to the effect that it is not his fault as he was the world’s greatest education minister. What about the four budget deficits in a row and the legacy of unfunded commitments? He said it was not his fault because he was only one member of the cabinet budget standing committee. What about the downturn in the State’s economy including three years in a row when business investment fell? He said it was not his fault, as he was only the resources minister. What about the disgraceful vilification of indigenous rights over native title issues? He said it was not his fault as it was the fault of Richard Court. There must be an end to this. If the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues cannot accept responsibility for the mistakes of the past, how can they have any credibility now?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am aware of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Is the member for Mandurah paraphrasing or providing a direct quote? The SPEAKER: I do not think this is a point of order. The Deputy Premier will enlighten the Leader of the Opposition about its accuracy. Debate Resumed Mr RIPPER: I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television and he placed the blame of the failure of outsourcing contracts on heads of government departments. It is an interesting view of accountability. It is not shared by other members of the Opposition. A learned member of the Opposition takes a different view. In 1998 he said - One of the important things about ministerial responsibility is that Ministers are responsible for what their departments do, whether the Ministers know about it or not. The department is the Minister, and the concept that the Minister, in whose name everything is done and who is responsible for everything, should not know what is happening in the department is quite contrary to the constitutional idea of accountability. Those were the views of Hon Peter Foss in 1998. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the backing of his colleagues. His pattern of behaviour since he has gone into the depths of opposition is quite revealing. He has had difficulty in accepting responsibility for anything in the past. Last night he rejected private sector criticism of the former Government’s handling of the Kingstream project. He said it was not his fault, as he was the world’s greatest resource minister. What about the collapse of the west Kimberley gas project and legal action against the State by Epic Energy on alleged promises made during the gas pipeline sale process? What does he say about that? He says, “It’s not my fault; I was the world’s greatest energy minister.” What about unfunded commitments to provide laptop computers to teachers and reduce class sizes? The Under Treasurer dealt with those unfunded commitments in his famous memo to the then Treasurer and the then Premier. It has been quoted in this House before. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? Words to the effect that it is not his fault as he was the world’s greatest education minister. What about the four budget deficits in a row and the legacy of unfunded commitments? He said it was not his fault because he was only one member of the cabinet budget standing committee. What about the downturn in the State’s economy including three years in a row when business investment fell? He said it was not his fault, as he was only the resources minister. What about the disgraceful vilification of indigenous rights over native title issues? He said it was not his fault as it was the fault of Richard Court. There must be an end to this. If the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues cannot accept responsibility for the mistakes of the past, how can they have any credibility now?
The SPEAKER: I do not think this is a point of order. The Deputy Premier will enlighten the Leader of the Opposition about its accuracy. Debate Resumed Mr RIPPER: I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television and he placed the blame of the failure of outsourcing contracts on heads of government departments. It is an interesting view of accountability. It is not shared by other members of the Opposition. A learned member of the Opposition takes a different view. In 1998 he said - One of the important things about ministerial responsibility is that Ministers are responsible for what their departments do, whether the Ministers know about it or not. The department is the Minister, and the concept that the Minister, in whose name everything is done and who is responsible for everything, should not know what is happening in the department is quite contrary to the constitutional idea of accountability. Those were the views of Hon Peter Foss in 1998. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the backing of his colleagues. His pattern of behaviour since he has gone into the depths of opposition is quite revealing. He has had difficulty in accepting responsibility for anything in the past. Last night he rejected private sector criticism of the former Government’s handling of the Kingstream project. He said it was not his fault, as he was the world’s greatest resource minister. What about the collapse of the west Kimberley gas project and legal action against the State by Epic Energy on alleged promises made during the gas pipeline sale process? What does he say about that? He says, “It’s not my fault; I was the world’s greatest energy minister.” What about unfunded commitments to provide laptop computers to teachers and reduce class sizes? The Under Treasurer dealt with those unfunded commitments in his famous memo to the then Treasurer and the then Premier. It has been quoted in this House before. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? Words to the effect that it is not his fault as he was the world’s greatest education minister. What about the four budget deficits in a row and the legacy of unfunded commitments? He said it was not his fault because he was only one member of the cabinet budget standing committee. What about the downturn in the State’s economy including three years in a row when business investment fell? He said it was not his fault, as he was only the resources minister. What about the disgraceful vilification of indigenous rights over native title issues? He said it was not his fault as it was the fault of Richard Court. There must be an end to this. If the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues cannot accept responsibility for the mistakes of the past, how can they have any credibility now?
The department is the Minister, and the concept that the Minister, in whose name everything is done and who is responsible for everything, should not know what is happening in the department is quite contrary to the constitutional idea of accountability.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.